asterix wrote:Second, there is a reason you don't here about mass shootings that were stopped. They were stopped.

OK, we can quit the name calling and aggressive tones. I'm as guilty as anybody. But your quote above is exactly why I don't agree that "more guns on the street = safer streets".

I know for a fact that if someone planned to perpetrate a mass shooting at a mall, school, etc. and were stopped by another armed person I would have heard about it. It would be all over the news and it would probably turn into the NRA's next commercial (i.e. "responsible citizen shoots down mass killer"). I have never heard of this happening. To be honest, I think the idea of "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is a marketing tool used by the NRA to rile up its membership and scare them into thinking the government is going to take away all their guns. Can you show me can instance where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun from committing a mass shooting?

And, the fact that they are not common has nothing to do with what asterisk said above... In order to hunt waterfowl you need a license which says you can only shoot so many birds per day. These bag limits are set up so that we won't shoot every bird out there like he's implying would happen if we had "unlimited ammo in our shoot guns".

More likely is that people just don't feel they need many shells in a shotgun at once. Usually you see a bird, take a couple shots, and reload.

I really thought you had a good understanding of firearms and laws that govern them. Then I read this. Wow, WOW! A simple question about hunting, resulting in an answer that reveals a complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Anyone that knows anything about firearms knows that every pump and semiauto shotgun is capible of holding more than 3 shells, some much more. By federal law they must be "plugged" in order to be used to hunt waterfowl or any other migratory bird. The reasons for the required "plugging" has been detailed by Asterix, and he is 100% correct.

I also have no idea why oldie83 would ask such a question in a debate about gun controll.

I was thrown off by the question and trying to answer it in the context of this discussion... obviously didn't go over well. I know my way around a shotgun and realize they hold more than 3 shells, but I do not know what you mean by "plugging" if you'd care to explain.

When waterfowl hunting you are limited to the number of rounds you can have in your gun at any given time. Most Semi-auto and Slide action shotguns hold 5-6 rounds and therefore hunters insert a plug, commonly a wooden dowel the length of the rounds that you need to keep from loading into the magazine tube. If your gun holds 5 rounds this would be the length of 2 rounds. This limits the number that it will hold to three. If a warden stops to check your license they will often check to make sure you have the plug installed so that your are legal.

Did anyone do any name calling? Oh that's right, this person called us all crazies.

XYZ1 wrote:Thank you, President Obama, for pursuing common sense reforms to help protect Americans being slaughtered by military style assault rifles that have no place in civilian life.My only advice would be to not listen to the crazies out there and continue to move this country Forward.

Makes me wonder about this statement

Be careful everybody.... if you don't agree with Old Scout he'll call you names and say you're stupid....

Oh and by the way, you won't here about law abiding citizens stopping the recent mass shootings. The theater and the school were both criminal safe zones, oops, i mean gun free zones. Law abiding citizens wouldn't have a gun on these properties.

Honest question for you: If my rifle was .22 caliber, had open rear and front sights, had a positive "on-off" safety, had a detachable box magazine that held 7 rounds, had plastic forearm and stock, and was semi-auto.....would that be considered to be a "normal" rifle?

Yes.

I just described 99% of all AR-15 rifles used for sporting purposes including predator hunting. If you replace the 7 round mag for a 10 round mag, it would be a description of most every AR15 in America.

AR is the ultimate hunting rifle. Parts are for the most part universal. They can be customized to fit the user. They are really durable and easy to disassemble. They are REALLY durable. The availability of extra parts is unmatched by any other rifle. Part from a D.P.M.S. AR are fully compatible with a Remington AR. My Mossberg 500 parts won't fit my Remington 870. I can get an AR lower that will fit many different calibers. Lower meaning stock and lower receiver with grip and parts kit and trigger. I can own one lower and just buy new uppers. There are a couple different size lowers for the ranges.

Honest question for you: If my rifle was .22 caliber, had open rear and front sights, had a positive "on-off" safety, had a detachable box magazine that held 7 rounds, had plastic forearm and stock, and was semi-auto.....would that be considered to be a "normal" rifle?

Yes.

I've often wondered what would happen if I posted pictures of two different guns. One is black, has a plastic stock and the magazine is visible from the bottom of the gun. The other has a multigrain wood stock that is absolutely beautiful. Both guns have scopes.

I suspect most people that don't know guns would attempt to explain that the black one resembles an "assault" rifle while the other is obviously a "hunting" rifle. The fun part, one is a Remington 522 Viper and the other is a Ruger 10/22. Both guns are IDENTICAL in functionality, caliber, etc. In fact, the "hunting" rifle (the Ruger) can easily accept a wide variety of extended magazines, there are tons of alternate stocks available (including black plastic), etc. The Remington wasn't as common so there aren't accessories available for it.

It isn't about guns. It's about Control and Power and however the liberal media chooses to spin it. I think that anywhere that Biden, Fenstein and other leftist politicians show up to sell their abolition of Second Amendment rights policy they should be met with large numbers of hostile protesters. The media will will ignore them and call those protesters crazy and racists like the did with the Tea Party tax protesters, but so what. Givem' ****!

I really get a chuckle from reading all the media stories and comments regarding gun control. The liberal press and gun control advocates don't have any good logical argument as to why more laws are needed so they resort to comments using the terms "gun nut", "crazies" etc. I guess that is the best they can do when they don't have any real solutions to the problem. They can't admit that there are already laws in place that if they were enforced would do the job. But that is always their answer, "more laws". They have no concept of having a rational discussion and arriving at a reasonable decision. It always has to be their way. I have no doubt that there could be some improvements in the way things are handled but so far I haven't heard anything that makes a whole lot of sense.

It boils down to if I don't like it I am going to keep you from having it. They forget that when they are pointing a finger at someone and calling them names that there are three fingers pointing back at them and all they are doing is showing the world their lack of common sense and respect of others and their right to an opinion that disagrees with them.

Reminds me of some of the people I used to work with. If there was a chance that someone else would get a raise and they didn't they would vote against the proposal just to screw the other guy.

I just can't help but think this is a giant magic trick. Look over here at the guns while I do something over here that you won't see. Has anybody seen whats happening with the DHS. They are being armed to the teeth and the govt is stock piling billions of round of ammo. Yes I said billions. With our tax dollars. Not only that. Their last order was awarded to a company that has no phone number, no email address, no listed owner, and no trace of existence at all. The company was created four days before they were awarded the contract. The U.S.A. is practically at war with each other. Brass is being depleted. What is really going on here?

"The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out." ~Thomas Babington Macaulay

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. George Washington

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and Prosperous by letting the US Government Officials take care of him, better take a closer look at the Americ Indian." Henry Ford

To Conquer a Nation, First Disarm its Citizens” - Adolph Hitler

When they take away my second amendment rights your first, sixth, and fifth are soon to follow.

No more need be said.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay

Here’s the problem I have with assault weapon, what makes 1 rifle and assault weapon and one not. Nothing it’s simply a word made up by the liberal press it’s a catch all in your face scare tactic. By removing the wood and adding black plastic why would that be considered an assault weapon? Are you telling me cause something has black plastic it suddenly becomes deadlier than wood. We’ve been down this road before with you folks the last time you tried to change the 2nd amendment your so called assault rife became darn near every rifle that was a semi-automatic. Kerry you always seem to put up a great argument, problem is just about all of your comments are ½ truths and made up as you go. Then I noticed something I had not noticed before, you live in Madison NUFF said

Once again, perhaps before attacking my position on things you should try actually READING my position and arguments.

I'm against an "assault weapon" ban. In fact, if you go through this entire thread, you'll see I don't even use the term, anywhere! My suggestions on this topic were designed specifically to prevent any form of gun registration, any limitation on people's ability to legally purchase a firearm, etc. They were specifically meant to prevent those who already are not legally able to buy a firearm from buying one.

The spa shooter near Milwaukee mall would have failed a background check, he had a restraining order against him. He purchased a handgun from a private seller, without having to pass a background check, two days after the restraining order was issued.

You also might want to take a little time to look at my comments. They're backed by facts and researched. I look at multiple sources of information and am pretty darn good a knowing the difference between a factual source and Billy Bob's blog (or purely going off what ever someone on Fox News said). I look for the actual figures and numbers to back most of it up. So, perhaps I'm not the one pulling information out of thin air...

Kerry Tobin,I think your proposed rules make a WHOLE LOT more sense than the President's!! Everyone read my quote below from Adolf Hitler himself regarding guns. He required guns from all non-Nazis and all other non-military related staff, not just guns, but also radios, walkie-talkies and other communication devices, including, if I have heard it right--in some places even telephones. Corrie ten Boom tells us the Netherlanders had to surrender these or risk arrest and prison terms.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay

So how long before the democrats "ask" us "for the good of the nation" to surrender our radios, phones and other person to person communication devices?After the guns, of course.

Are they attempting to follow Hitler's or Stalin's playbooks? Don't they know that Socialsim as we once knew it is dead? That socialism has led to economic disaster in Europe (only Germany and Scandinavia and UK are holding their own--FOR OTHER REASONS besides Socialism!!), that nazism is long-dead--and only a ridiculous and hated fringe group in the US, that the only remotely successful (both economically and otherwise) "Communist" governments left are China, Cuba, and Venezuela, and China only because it has let in some measure of Capitalism and Venezuela because it turned into a little tin horn dictatorship centered on oil like Libya and Iraq (and look how those countries are NOW!) and Cuba also became a dictatorship. Russia is only rising again because the STUPID socialist governments in Europe disbanded and destroyed their nuclear and other power plants and are now beholden and at the MERCY of Russia for POWER??

In other words, Socialists are IDIOTS.

A least it took a tsunami for the Japanese to follow in some degree, and their good behavior and corporate love their neighbor mentality following the tsunami puts the rest of the world, including us, to shame. You would think they were the ONLY nation (besides maybe, Germany) that learned from WWII.

This is what you GET with the different brands of Socialism--NOTHING BUT A MESS. Even Finland, which used to be the top "non-corrupt" nation, has now fallen down on the list, thanks to joining the EU, which unfortunately they HAD TO, otherwise they would be at the mercy of Russia, which it looks like they will be STUCK in that position ANYWAY thanks to STUPID SOCIALIST EU policies! They should be screaming: "THANKS A LOT, BELGIUM!" Sweden, which is now dubiously called, "the no 1 uncorrupt nation", cannot be relied upon to help, either, because they didn't lift a finger to help Finland in the Winter War, as neither did the US or Britain (it wasn't because of Hitler, either, Germany only sold planes to Finland after the others turned their backs on Finland. You can't call them allies unless you could call the Americans the allies of Islam for selling weapons to the different Muslim governments, but interesting while the different sects fight one another--in my book that's nothing but "making profit from war", and you expect the Nazis would behave any differently? In a pig's eye. Russia does the same, too). One wonders how "anti-Communist" we ever were, I really think Joe McCarthey was just a laughable "straw man" the government tolerated for a time. You notice how quickly our socialist movements grew once he was out of circulation.

Socialism means nothing more than BIG GOVERNMENT, which our founding fathers claimed to be against, and that is exactly what the Dems want. Ben Carsen is right in saying that the Dems simply want to control Blacks as a voting block, but never let them rise to their level. I will take it one step further, it's just another attempt at slavery. The best example are their platitudes about education, but NEVER wanting to allow school choice for the poor person when most of the rich Democrats' kids go to top notch private schools with the best of everything, including ARMED guards, but God forbid we have THAT in public schools! And all our elected officials have armed guards themselves and even pack their own weapons but WE the voters can't in their eyes, if that is not hypocrisy, tell me WHAT is. Even Ben Carsen and the conservative blacks can tell they are being hoodwinked, why can't the rest of us? What the Dems are practicing is really almost an extension of the old slavery, only they can't practice it openly any more so they are only too happy to give them the welfare and the low economic status that most blacks THINK they want, after their family structure was totally destroyed in the sixties. In fact, it was so successful with the American black man that they have slavishly desired to have that happen to the rest of us, but they keep meeting those pesky conservatives and Christians and some Jews who recognize this social agenda for what it really is--an attempt at keeping permanent power and a level of elitism that they don't want anyone to enjoy or attain to, which is exactly what Ben Carsen is attempting to educate people on. At least he, as a top neurosurgeon, which like others to attain to his status, and sees that the current administration would rather have that status attained for their progeny and no one else's. The problem is, not every child of an elite is fit to follow their parents and that's what has the rest of us scared. When Stalin came to power and it was leaked he had been a mediocre student (as was a few other Communist and Marxist leaders), he just had those who really knew and could prove it killed, how far are our elites willing to go to maintain their status quo--or push it further?

Back to subject: You may have not heard that there are even wackos that want to remove guns from the Milwaukee police. If you are for that, don't talk to me. If even police can't carry firearms according to some idiots, then we are really nuts. The police carry firearms in the pursuit of protecting the rest of us. If that is so, then neither should the Presidents' own men have them,

but I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD NOT BE THAT STUPID!

WOULD WE???

**and I am certain, if I remember my years in Tomahawk right, most people in the outlying areas still minimally need a "varmint" gun (some type of 22 or BB gun) to deal with the small animals (especially if the gov goes through with its stupid plan on "vicious" feral cats that "eliminate whole species of birds and RODENTS--note here they do actually they feel sorry for the rats and mice) and some type of rifle or shotgun to deal with larger animals. One of my relatives from there says you still see black bears at the dump, another said wolves and coyotes are still around (heck we have coyotes and deer here so thick near not too far from Milwaukee you'd wish we had additional hunting season!)**

Besides which, the cougars are coming back. I hate to tell you folks up (more) north, they have been sighted so far as far north as Waupaca. I am not kidding you, there were at least 3-4 sighted last summer in different areas.Unless that is one really FAST and FAR RANGING cougar! In which case, you'd better hope the government allows you to keep your fast shooting rifle! They have been know in CA to drop down on children, bicyclists, and joggers (and most of them require reconstructive surgery afterward, if not a coffin) without even a moment's warning and for your child's sake at least, the government should allow you something to defend them! If not from your occasional breaking and entering robber or would-be murderer, or rapist, or local "friendly" neighborhood drug dealer or their "slaves" (meaning addicts), which are far from "occasional" people you "meet" in the areas down south here.

Move down here and a car and house alarms and window locks and caller ID and cell phones become minimal REQUIRED purchases, if you have any brains at all.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay

I sound like a conservative, but I lived in two very liberal areas where people, LIBERALS, actually wanted to remove guns from police officers and security guards, then they had the audacity to scream about pepper spray and were ugly enough to call young women who carried Derringer purse guns "gun nuts" and "trigger happy pigs". I wonder how many of them are actually felons or guys who can't even pick a drunk woman up at a bar.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay

Kerry I’m sure you feel your using facts and backing your opinions up But you have this strange thing about leaving out certain pieces and words that well might not justify what you preach. Case in point ya told me Obama was courageous cause he returned a whole $20,000.00 of his 400,000.00 salary back to the treasury but you neglected to mention the Fact that Scott Walker returned over $60,000.00 per ever year he was a county Executive, Half his pay. Why was that Kerry cause one’s the Liberal Anointed King and the other made you pay your way? This is what I mean about half truths one of many You might want to watch something other than CNN of MSNBC for your so called facts “[quote]My suggestions on this topic were designed specifically to prevent any form of gun registration”

Really well tell me how do you do a national back ground check without entering a national data base. Are you going to tell me that at any time the government wouldn’t have access to this data base?Would that not give them all the information they need for registration. Why does big brother always think he knows what’s good for the people?

Congratulations to Walker. There are things about him I respect. There better be, I voted for him once (a mistake I promise I won't make again). That's the first I've heard of that and I'll give him credit. In the future, perhaps make your point that Walker did it rather than claim I'm giving half truths.

I notice once again you can't seem to make an argument without throwing in name calling though. If you have a point, make it on it's merits. Throwing in B.S. like "Liberal Anointed King" will get you about as far with me, and any other reasonable person as "$cott Walker" will. I have no respect for either argument.

As far as a doing background checks. Considering IT is my field and I studied database (it's one word, not two) design at both the undergrad and graduate level. Perhaps we should rely on my expertise when I tell you it is quite possible to create a database that will allow a background check without having to store who is checked. If that's what the law requires, that's what can be done.

It's a pretty simple thing to believe that for something as potentially lethal as a gun, one should have to pass a background check. It shouldn't be more of a hassle to buy over the counter drugs with psuedoephedrine (which requires an ID) than it is to buy a gun. Passing a background check is already the law for any new guns sold or guns sold by someone with an FFL. And in just one case, perhaps three innocent people would be alive, and four others uninjured, if the seller of the .40 caliber handgun had felt it was important to run a background check before handing over a gun to someone with a restraining order barring possession of a gun, issued days earlier no less.

In Wisconsin alone 1,000 criminals were flagged by background checks last year, preventing a gun purchase. Now imagine how much higher that number might be if background checks were run at gun shows and for private purchases.

As a gun owner, I was taught, and firmly believe, gun ownership is a responsibility as much as it is a right. It's my responsibility to make sure any gun I own is safe and doesn't fall into the wrong hands. There is no discussion that could possible persuade me that a Hunters Safety course I took over 20 years ago is adequate training to carry a concealed weapon. I also know that I personally don't have a way to know that a gun I sell isn't being sold to someone that can't legally own it without some method of running a background check. So, if you can propose a better solution to those two problems, then we have something to discuss.

In fact, they do not report these things in the news. For example, the oregon mall shooter was stopped by a concealed carrying person in the mall. He shot himself after that person pulled their gun and pointed it at him.

You really do a disservice to women in cities when you demand NO concealed carry. I was a victim of sexual assault and another victim of sexual assault was actually a BLACKBELT, so you can't say, "then just take martial arts classes!" and really, older women can't easily do that, either. Emily Willigel, a young bartender in the city of Milwaukee not too soon after I went to the university was brutally raped, robbed, mutilated, and then left for dead on the Milwaukee northern east side after she left work for the evening. If more women were allowed to carry concealed weapons and trained properly in the use of them--then there would be less rape deaths of women. Another woman was mutilated in the face in an enclosed underground parking garage of a graduate dorm and required over 40 stitches. I was shocked by these because when I was a young kid, such things did not take place in that neighborhood at all. These things really have decreased with a decrease in sentencing for such crimes and more "rehab".

A mother also fairly recently in another state saw or heard an intruder break into her house at night when her husband was at work and did exactly what the DEMS tell you to do WITH ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION: scrambled with the children to an upstairs ATTIC CLOSET but with her husband's 38 CALIBER PISTOL LOADED and waited (I don't know whether she called 911 like the Dems WANT you to do, but I am sure we can all agree the Dems have told you to cower under a bed, call 911 and wait without a gun for the intruder to get you while the liberal led cops wait until you're dead so they can mop up the mess and if they do manage to catch your killer--they'll still release him in about 10-15 years to kill another, if not sooner). He apparently was not just interested in rifling their house, he must have had an interest in the occupants too because bothered to go all the way up to the attic and found them hiding--A WOMAN AND HER CHILDREN--you can imagine his surprise when she pointed the gun and told him to go away and when he didn't run she shot him six times. He may have died eventually (I haven't found that out) but apparently he was still alive at the time of his arrest because her aim was not good. Her husband praised her for doing "the right thing" and her planning.

There, I have given you two examples where a gun was necessary and needed and two examples, real life ones, where a gun could have stopped the male assaulters. Had the principal or an office staff person or a security guard at Newtown been armed, it would have been a very different story. We had a principal right here in WI who, although he was not armed, he stopped a school shooter and paid for it with his life and you don't hear anyone in the media talking about him right now because the liberals want us all to be freakish cowards and stupidity still believe murderers will still stop if someone pleads for their life. Idiots, all. Pleading and begging only encouraged the Columbine shooters. Forcing women to put up with less sentencing and punishment for violent crimes committed by males, then stripping them of their 2nd amendment rights and then setting up marriage changes that will certainly cause men, in particular, to demand a return of multiple marriage partners is a serious blow to women's rights. In addition, there are laws or there used to be, against porn shops and girlie joints and virtual child pornography (but that was struck down by the supreme court, so now it exists and is viewed on websites), but they are here so those laws are either unenforced or the laws against them were removed. I left the Feminist party for that very reason, when I saw the women were such idiots as to cater to things that benefit men ONLY, particularly violent and sex crazed men. WHen men were expected to behave more civilly in our society, there was less of this, particularly because the penalties were STEEP. There were more guns available when I was young and more openly and interestingly enough, the worst thing that happened when I was in school was I got molested by a punk on school grounds, but that was after they lowered the penalty for sexual assaults. Once they lowered the penalty for murder, more murders took place. The liberals have cleverly convinced children that schools were always this way and young people are always shocked when I tell them I could take walks out at night in Milwaukee a mere forty years and nothing happened. Something only happened at the already liberal schools to me. I was safer in the local park or downtown at 7 pm at night than I was on my own school grounds!

All these things that are coming into play are nothing but very subtle means that will disarm women and children again and put them at the mercy of violent men, lascivious men, and people (both male and female) who desire to be almost open abusers of children to various degrees with little or no punishment. The greatest number of killings in fact, are black on black men with ILLEGAL guns, not legal guns, and they always find a way to get one. To disarm the legal and law-abiding populace, including, as we keep hearing in the most liberal city, Madison, the police, is absolutely INSANE, as is removing from women the one protection they may have against a man in the big city. You are attacking the wrong people on this issue. The Newtown shooter and Holmes both had a history of mental illness, the Columbine shooters were into Satanism, the shooter at a Sikh temple in Mlilwaukee was a white supremacist, the kid who wanted to shoot up a school in Dane county was in for therapy for having been bullied.

These are not isolated examples, they all have a similar streak, so you can't stop them by disarming the rest of us. The most common murderers in fact do practically all their shootings with illegal guns, meaning gang members, the only way to stop them is to find some other way. You won't stop them from killing one another unless you hit the source: the gang itself.

But the liberals are more concerned about errant kindergartners these days that draw guns on their papers or wear the wrong hairstyle or clothing to school or the 'evil' parents who homeschool their kids (for good reason! and we still pay taxes and don't mind taxes as long as you leave us and our kids alone! You can test them when they are graduated to see if they pass your academics and usually they do BETTER in college!) than they are about the drug dealer down the street or the known gang downtown that just mugged an old lady WHO PAYS TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT than the muggers who DON'T or the known child molester who stalks the neighborhood looking for his next victim or the parents who stick their kids on meds to keep them 'under control' (this crime is RAMPANT in Dane County, where the liberal doctors "diagnose" kids with all kinds of things at the request of their teachers or "child caregivers", in particular--one out of every three kids I knew there was on meds like Ritalin, anti-depressants, things similar to Prozac, etc. Note it also has a high rate of violence and bullying in its schools, robberies, rapes, alcohol crimes, buzzed driving, drug dealing, murders compared with every city in WI except Milwaukee--which is much larger--there was a major murder involving gangs in one of the high schools there--WITH A STOLEN GUN, NOT A LEGAL GUN, just two or three years ago--and they felt sorry for the murders getting what they felt was a 'horrible' sentence of 10-15 years--FOR MURDER??--we used to hang such people--what's the matter with us??)

We just are 'gunning' for the WRONG people, the law-abiding, legal taxpayer isn't the criminal here. It's the criminal. Our government has got this SERIOUSLY turned around. I know people that were in gangs and left that lifestyle and they say guns are EASY to get illegally, taking them away from law-abiding people would just make the shooters more bold because their intended victims will be less able to avoid being attacked or killed, and with the government on their side, they can count on getting out in less than twenty years for even the worst crimes, at least that's what they say.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay

Ken--If I sound paranoid, it's because I was sexually assaulted. So you have a problem with women wanting to be protected from rapists? That's why this one martial artist woman who still managed to get assaulted anyway was asking this one democratic politician who was against concealed why he wouldn't want her to be protected in the future.You guys may get robbed, but it is women and children who end up suffering the most when sex offenders, murderers, and other criminals roam free. Why don't you let a few women in the cities carry derringers after proper training and eliminate a few of them for you? I know that sounds terrible, but if that sex-crazed and sick headed rapist needed to be afraid of a woman packing a gun or a mom pulling a gun on him when he breaks into a house, don't you think the smarter ones at least will think twice before doing it?Right these sickos have the liberals and democrats in their hip pockets, what disgusts me is some of them are rich, liberal women who don't care because they think they will never have to face that situation themselves, surrounded as they are by their armed guards and all their money and, for at least a few, illegal servants.

All you need to do to make a woman paranoid is to destroy her sense of security and the easiest way is to assault her or rob her. If you are spooked by someone who sounds paranoid and 'must be smoking something' (which I am NOT ), you as a man should be with the gun lobbyists and find other ways to stop rape besides the laughable circus sideshow way the democrats are doing it, which seems to be "take away women's concealed arms and at least the rapists, muggers and school shooters won't get shot (by a female principal who might have one)". Hmm...how does this work? Can you explain this one to me? It did occur to me that if the teachers or office staff, just one or two, had been armed, the Newtown tragedy would have ended differently...Oh yeah, I know, then the teacher or staffer would be in jail for "involuntary manslaughter" like George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin and the president would use that one, too, RIGHT???But I still think that's BETTER than what HAPPENED. By the way, that shooter had a history of mental illness, stemming from bad experiences in public school, and his mother was a "birther", too, do you think those had anything to do with it, too? Maybe we should deal with actual causes rather than just attacking legal gun owners, who are not responsible for these murders. That's like saying the woman who was raped caused herself to be raped.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay

Just the NICS Section of the background checks (for firearms and explosives) issued a denial 88,479 times in 2012. That doesn't include the state users checks according to their information. From November 30, 1998 to March 31, 2012 there were 1,015,699 denials. Wisconsin had 469,375 firearms checks in 2012 or 2.3957% of the 19,592,303 checks. Based on that number, if Wisconsin followed the national average for denials there would have been 2,119 in Wisconsin last year (the FBI doesn't make a state by state count available on their website and I don't think submitting a Freedom of Information request to please someone on a message board is necessary). As of March 31, 2013 there were 10,313,822 active prohibited records in NICS, 5,312,456 of those are for Illegal aliens.